Subscribe to RSS
What is the Threat: Islam, Islamism, or Western Sins?
From Rubin Reports.Blogspot.Com
What is the Threat: Islam, Islamism, or Western Sins?
Posted: 17 Aug 2010 12:49 PM PDT
Please be subscriber 17,234. Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/
We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: “American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.
By Barry Rubin
The current debate over the roots of Islamist revolution, clashes in the Middle East, and conflicts between forces in that region and the West involves two critical issues of interpretation:
First, is there a threat to the West from groups whose members are Muslims or does the fault arise from Western policies and shortcomings which, if altered, would make any conflict disappear?
Second, if there is a threat does it stem from Islam as religion or Islamism as political philosophy?
It is important to understand that revolutionary Islamists do draw on mainstream, accepted, and sacred Muslim texts. Their argument has the potential to be just as “legitimate” in believers’ eyes as does the contrary view. At the same time, though, Islam as a religion is not the threat, even though it is the threat’s source and rationale.
The best image to use in order to understand this situation is neither to see the car’s driver (Islam) as inherently bad (as does the “Islam is the threat” camp) or inherently good but facing a would-be hijacker (the “Islam is a religion of peace” camp). A more accurate view is of a battle over the steering wheel by contenders who both have a claim to ownership. Both may be reckless drivers but the main danger is the Islamists, those who want to run us over and then drive the car and all its passengers over a cliff.
Islamism definitely draws on normative Islam and thus has wide appeal among Muslims. But, likewise, Islamism has many Muslim opponents who don’t accept it as their version of Islam.
There are many who do not want to accept the “Islam is the problem” argument because to do so is depressing (billions of people are against us!) or because it conflicts with their ideological assumptions (one cannot criticize any religion, or at least one that is not your own), or because it can be ridiculously labeled as “racist” (one cannot criticize anyone who isn’t wealthy or Western or “white.”)
These are fallacious arguments. But they don’t prove the “Islam is the problem” approach is correct, any more than do other fallacious arguments–that Islam is “really” a “religion of peace,” or that there is no threat, or that the conflict’s cause is Western sins—prove that revolutionary Islamism isn’t a danger.
Those who deny the nature of the threat often argue that when “properly interpreted” Muslim texts are not “really” radical, violent, and seeking political hegemony. However, one must quickly add that those “proper interpretations” are distinctly minority ones today, even if they predominated forty years ago.
The fact that Muslim texts do give backing to revolutionary Islamists does not mean that all or even most Muslims think that way. What it does reveal, though, is that unless they are going to hear counter-arguments, receive strong leadership by fellow Muslims, or enjoy Western support for fighting revolutionary Islamism they are more likely to think that way over time.
Most Muslims, even today, are not revolutionary Islamists. But in recent decades the current has flowed in that direction. I remember distinctly when a text like the Muhammad Abd al-Salaam Faraj’s book, The Neglected Obligation, calling for a revival of jihad, came out at the end of the 1970s, seemed so marginal. But the revolution in Iran took place in 1979. Then a small group of Egyptian jihadists assassinated President Anwar al-Sadat and launched a guerrilla war. Shortly thereafter, Faraj was captured and executed. Since then, Islamists have steadily gathered steam, despite an apparent decline in the late 1990s, and extended their power and support base.
The task of true moderate Muslims is to change the situation and make the moderate interpretations mainstream. They have a lot of work ahead of them and they are getting all too little support from the West.
Can they hope for success? Certainly. Christianity was an extremist religion in practice a thousand years ago and in some ways until a long time afterward. Of course, one can argue that its accepted texts are peace-oriented and that this religion’s founder—in contrast to Muhammad—opposed violence and a theocratic government. In making such an “obvious” (and factually accurate) argument, however, one must keep in mind that centuries ago such things were not considered obvious at all.
One can expect in the future—probably far in the future—Islam would still have the same founding texts yet will have developed to the point where moderate Islam dominates. That process could take in the Muslim majority world anywhere between 50 to 400 years or so. It is not likely to happen in our lifetimes and it is dangerous to expect otherwise.
Yet that doesn’t mean Islamism will triumph in the mean time. There are counter-identities and ideas among Muslims that block Islamism’s victory. They include the following factors:
–Individuality. People have different priorities and psychologies. They often tend (though less often than people in the West think) to want a stable life having the highest possible living standard and most benefits for their children. We see this does not always work (parents cheering their children becoming suicide bombers) but often does.
One must be careful, though, about basing government policy on this assumption, thinking, for example, more prosperity in the Gaza Strip will make Hamas more moderate or lead to its overthrow. Even aside from the appeals of ideology or religious doctrine, a minority of militants can often persuade or intimidate a much larger body of people to follow them.
–Ethnic-communal identity. Many Muslims belong to a sub-community which usually attracts their main loyalty. For example, there are Muslims who are Kurds, Berbers, or members of other groups including tribes. Sunni and Shia identities can be important also, accommodating Islamism (Hizballah) or communal nationalism (Amal) even among the same group of Lebanese Shias. Druze, Alevis (Turkey), and Alawites (Syria) are members of groups differing from normative Islam (I’d call them non-Muslims) and have their own communal loyalties.
–Nationalism. This has been the most important competitor of Islam in the Middle East. Aside from communal nationalism (previous paragraph) there are two other types: to a transnational nation, namely Arab nationalism or patriotism to a nation-state. These can co-exist with a strong Muslim identity but one less likely to be Islamist.
The existence of Arab nationalism, plus the power of the regimes that wield it, is the main force blocking Islamist victory among most Middle Eastern Muslims. That is why the preservation of the current relatively moderate Arab regimes—despite all of their faults—is extremely important for Western interests.
–Alternative forms of Muslim identity. This includes Sufism, following more moderate clerical interpretations, or even the radical Islamic Wahabi creed within Saudi Arabia which is nonetheless supports the existing highly pious but not revolutionary Islamist state. Wahabism abroad is often indistinguishable from revolutionary Islamism while within Saudi Arabia it generally fights against the al-Qaida revolutionary forces.
–Conservative, traditional Islam, that is, Islam as practiced prior to the modern rise of Islamism and among Muslims who don’t support revolutionary Islamism. This version of Islam has a quarrel with modernity. It sometimes supports terrorism, too.
But the important thing is that conservative, traditional Islam neither seeks thoroughgoing political revolution to impose its version of Islam on every aspect of the society nor advocates war on the West. For example, non-Islamist Islam may seek a society in which Islamic law is “a key source of legislation” along with Western-derived “secular” law, in contrast to the Islamist who wants Islamic law to be the “only source of legislation.”
Conservative, traditional Islam is often state-sponsored in order to ensure its support for the regime and status quo. Sometimes these clerics—the Palestinian Authority, Egyptian clerics on Iraq—take positions on “foreign policy” close to that of the Islamists. For example, they endorse terrorism against foreign non-Muslims but not at home. Nevertheless, they are less threatening to the domestic status quo and region overall.
While those Islamists who actively use violence are the most dangerous, those with revolutionary goals are equally Islamist and a threat even if they are not using violence in the present. This, of course, refers to the Egyptian and Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood especially. It is important to understand that the fact that they aren’t actively involved in violent revolution because of moderation but because they fear government repression. Their exact counterparts are Hamas and Hizballah, which are so radical and violent in their practice because they aren’t afraid of their weak rivals, the Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority respectively.
–Modernism. The basic acceptance of modern forms of belief and behavior often associated with the West. As Arab nationalism and nation-state patriotism is the main barrier to revolutionary Islamism in the Middle East, modernism plays that role among Muslims living in the West. The failure of Western societies to seek energetically an acculturation or assimilation along these lines is thus very dangerous and tends to put radical Islamists in control of the communities.
It is an interesting question to what extent “natural” factors, that is the day-to-day experience of living in a modern society with its good (freedom of thought, equality of women) and bad (drugs, alcohol, potential sex) features is going to transform Muslim communities there. Again, one has to get the balance right. One thing that is clear, however, is that European state practices are inhibiting this process rather than helping it.
Focusing on Islamism as the threat teaches the central importance of allying with genuinely moderate Muslims whose lives and lifestyles are threatened by the radicals. This does not just mean the small number actively trying to “reform” Islam but also the much larger number who just want to be left alone, enjoy freedom, and participate in the benefits of modernity.
This analysis, then, demonstrates why it is important to show how Islamism is rooted in genuine mainstream Islam and is not merely some hijacking of a “religion of peace.”
Equally, though, it is vital not to assume that because something can be found in authoritative Muslim texts this tells us that Islam is “inherently” radical. Only by comprehending this can we understand how radicalism may be fought effectively.
Both of these points are extraordinarily relevant. If one doesn’t understand the first, disaster will come from passivity, wishful thinking, and actually strengthening revolutionary forces by mistaking them as moderate ones.
Yet if one doesn’t understand the second—all the factors subverting radical Islamism despite its claim to be normative Islam—one won’t know how to proceed strategically and tactically. An additional problem is that one will be written off as extremist by the dominant Western society. It is all right to be brave despite name-calling and delegitimization efforts if one is right, but doesn’t make sense when the analysis itself is not so accurate or helpful.
In understanding this distinction, let’s briefly consider the Netherlands as a useful example. There are five parties in the Netherlands somewhere between mildly left of center and conservative. In the last election they received 55 percent of the seats in parliament. Geert Wilders’ party received 24 seats, about 30 percent of the center-right vote and about 16 percent of the overall vote. He has tended to focus on Islam as the problem.
The other four parties received about 40 percent of the total vote. All these parties have a serious critique of radical Islamism. The most liberal of them, Christian Union, put it in these words:
“Every Dutchman has the right to assembly, to religion and to express his opinion. But financial support of Dutch political, cultural and religious institutes from demonstrably non-free countries (such as Saudi-Arabia and Iran) is not permitted. It’s allowed to protect a free society from the importation of bondage.” It supported banning the burqa from public buildings, public transport, and schools.
Wilders is internationally famous, or notorious, but who has heard of Mark Rutte, leader of the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, the country’s largest party? Yet if anyone is going to change the country’s direction on immigration, Islamism, multi-culturalism, and a pro-Western, pro-Israel foreign policy it is going to be Rutte, not Wilders, since Wilders is considered, rightly or wrongly, too extreme to be in a government coalition.
One might take Wilders and Rutte as examples of the two sides of the debate analyzed above. Wilders is more consistent but lacks effectiveness in setting national policy. It can be argued that he widens the debate, making it possible for other parties to take a stronger stand and critiquing them when they go “soft.” But he also offers a good target for demonizing the anti-Islamists and splitting the vote of those who want change.
The anti-Islam argument can mobilize a small number of courageous defectors from Islam and critics among Muslims, the anti-Islamism argument, however, can ally with millions of Muslims and governments in Muslim-majority countries.
If the Western establishment view would be that Islamism is a big threat and problem, this debate would be less relevant. In recent years, however, the official view of Western governments has moved toward saying that only al-Qaida is the threat and that Islamists can be won over. This is an extremely dangerous position that brands both the “Islam is the threat” and “Islamism is the threat” analyses as “Islamophobic” and dismisses them without serious consideration.
This approach is highly dangerous for Western interests, democracy, and even for the future of millions of Muslims who face death or tyranny at the hands of revolutionary Islamism.
There are real “Islamophobes” in the sense of people who are bigoted. But the number is far tinier than Politically Correct forces claim. “Islamophobia” is a stick used to intimidate anti-Islamism. At any rate, those who are motivated by an irrational hatred of Islam are not the main threat to Western civilization and interests today. That role is played by far more powerful forces that ignore real problems and unintentionally assist revolutionary Islamists at home or abroad.
The “anti-Islam” argument is neither accurate nor strategically useful. The “Islam is a religion of peace and you can’t criticize even radical Islamists” argument is neither accurate nor furthers the survival of Western interests and democracy. What is needed is an “anti-Islamism” approach that also works with moderate Islam, the best alternative in principle yet regrettably weak, and a conservative, traditional non-Islamist Islam, the most practical alternative at this point in history.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Welcome To The Maldives – No Materials Contrary To Islam Allowed
From Christian Post.Com
Visitors to this Islamic island nation get a sense of religious restrictions even before they arrive. The arrival-departure cards given to arriving airline passengers carry a list of items prohibited under Maldivian laws – including “materials contrary to Islam.”
After Saudi Arabia, the Maldives is the only nation that claims a 100-percent Muslim population. The more than 300,000 people in the Maldives, an Indian Ocean archipelago featuring 1,192 islets 435 miles southwest of Sri Lanka, are all Sunnis.
This South Asian nation, however, has more than 70,000 expatriate workers representing several non-Islamic religions, including Christianity.
Also, around 60,000 tourists, mainly from Europe, visit each year to enjoy the blue ocean and white beaches and normally head straight to one of the holiday resorts built on around 45 islands exclusively meant for tourism. Tourists are rarely taken to the other 200 inhabited islands where locals live.
Nearly one-third of the population lives in the capital city of Malé, the only island where tourists and Maldivians meet.
While the Maldivians do not have a choice to convert out of Islam or to become openly atheist, foreigners in the country can practice their religion only privately.
In previous years several Christian expats have either been arrested for attending worship in private homes or denied visas for several months or years on suspicion of being connected with mission agencies.
According to “liberal estimates,” the number of Maldivian Christians or seekers “cannot be more than 15,” said one source.
“Even if you engage any Maldivian in a discussion on Christianity and the person reports it to authorities, you can be in trouble,” the source said. “A Maldivian youth studying in Sri Lanka became a Christian recently, but when his parents came to know about it, they took him away. We have not heard from him since then.”
The source added that such instances are not uncommon in the Maldives.
“I wish I could attend church, but I am too scared to look for one,” said a European expat worker. “I have not even brought my Bible here; I read it online. I don’t want to take any chances.”
The British reportedly translated the Bible into the local language, Dhivehi, and made it available in the 19th century, as the Maldives was a British protectorate from 1887 to 1965. Today no one knows how the Dhivehi Bible “disappeared.”
“A new translation has been underway for years, and it is in no way near completion,” said the source who requested anonymity.
Religion Excluded from Rights
The 2008 constitution, adopted five years after a popular movement for human rights began, states that a “non-Muslim may not become a citizen of the Maldives.”
Abdulla Yameen, brother of the former dictator of the Maldives and leader of the People’s Alliance party, an ally of the opposition Dhivehi Raiyyathunge Party (Maldivian People’s Party or DRP), told Compass that the issue of religious freedom was “insignificant” for the Maldives.
“There’s no demand for it from the public,” Yameen said. “If you take a public poll, 99 percent of the citizens will say ‘no’ to religious freedom.”
Maldivians are passionate about their religion, Yameen added, referring to a recent incident in which a 37-year-old Maldivian citizen, Mohamed Nazim, was attacked after he told a gathering that he was not a Muslim. On May 28, before a crowd of around 11,000 Maldivians, Nazim told a visiting Indian Muslim televangelist, Zakir Naik, that although he was born to a practicing Muslim family, he was “struggling to believe in religions.”
He also asked Naik about his “verdict on Islam.” The question enraged an angry crowd, with many calling for Nazim’s death while others beat him. He received several minor injuries before police took him away.
“See how the public went after his [Nazim’s] throat,” said Yameen, who studied at Claremont Graduate University in California. When asked if such passion was good for a society, he replied, “Yes. We are an Islamic nation, and our religion is an important part of our collective identity.”
Asked if individuals had no rights, his terse answer was “No.” Told it was shocking to hear his views, he said, “We are also shocked when a nation legalizes gay sex.”
Mohamed Zahid, vice president of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, told Compass that the country has its own definition of human rights.
“It is to protect people’s rights under the sharia [Islamic law] and other international conventions with the exception of religious freedom,” he said. “We are a sovereign nation, and we follow our own constitution.”
Zahid and several other local sources told Compass that the issue of religious rights was “irrelevant” for Maldivians. “Not more than 100 people in the country want religious freedom,” Zahid said.
Politics of Religion
Former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, a virtual dictator for 30 years until 2008, is generally held responsible for creating an atmosphere of religious restrictions in the Maldives, as he sought to homogenize religion in the country by introducing the state version of Sunni Islam. He also led a major crackdown on Christians.
The Protection of Religious Unity Act, enacted in 1994, was an endeavor to tighten the government’s control over mosques and all other Islamic institutions. The Gayoom administration even wrote Friday sermons to be delivered in mosques.
In 1998, Gayoom began a crackdown on alleged missionary activities.
“A radio station based out of India used to air Christian programs via the Seychelles, but the government came to know about it and ensured that they were discontinued with the help of the government in the Seychelles,” said a local Muslim source.
That year, Gayoom reportedly arrested around 50 Maldivians who were suspected to have converted to Christianity and deported 19 foreign workers accused of doing missionary work. A source said Gayoom apparently wanted to regain popularity at a time when his leadership was being questioned.
When the archipelago became a multi-party democracy in October 2008, new President Mohamed Nasheed, a former journalist and activist, was expected to pursue a liberal policy as part of the country’s reforms agenda.
Although Nasheed is the president, his party, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), has only 28 members and the support of four independents in the 77-member People’s Majlis (Maldives’ unicameral Parliament). Gayoom, now in his 70s and the leader of the largest opposition party, the DRP, has a simple majority – which presents difficulties in governance. Nasheed pleads helplessness in implementing reforms, citing an intransigent opposition.
Today Gayoom’s party accuses President Nasheed of not being able to protect the country’s distinct identity and culture, which the opposition says are rooted in Islam. The Gayoom-led parliament recently sought to impeach the education minister for proposing to make Islam and Dhivehi lessons optional – rather than mandatory – in high school.
To pre-empt the impeachment move, the whole cabinet of Nasheed resigned on June 29, which caused a major political crisis that led to violent street protests. The Nasheed administration allegedly arrested some opposition members, including Gayoom’s brother, Yameen. Political tensions and uncertainties continued at press time.
Now that President Nasheed’s popularity is declining – due to perceptions that he has become as authoritarian as his predecessor – it is feared that, amid immense pressure by the opposition to follow conservative policies, he might begin to follow in Gayoom’s footsteps.
Growing Extremism
Both the ruling and opposition parties admit that Islamic extremism has grown in the country. In October 2007, a group of young Maldivians engaged government security forces in a fierce shootout on Himandhoo Island.
Nasheed’s party alleges that Gayoom’s policy of promoting the state version of Sunni Islam created an interest to discern “true Islam,” with extremists from Pakistan stepping in to introduce “jihadism” in the Maldives. The DRP, on the other hand, says that behind the growth of extremism is the current government’s liberal policy of allowing Muslims of different sects to visit the Maldives to preach and give lectures, including the conservative Sunni sect of “Wahhabis.”
Until the early 1990s, Maldivian women would hardly wear the black burqa (covering the entire body, except the eyes and hands), and no men would sport a long beard – outward marks of Wahhabi Muslims, said the Muslim source, adding that “today the practice has become common.”
Still, Islam as practiced in the Maldives is pragmatic and unlike that of Saudi Arabia, he said. “People here are liberal and open-minded.”
As extremism grows, though, it is feared that radical Islamists may go to any extent to extra-judicially punish anyone suspected of being a missionary or having converted away from Islam, and that they can pressure the government to remain indifferent to religious freedom.
How long will it take for the Maldives to allow religious freedom?
- Prophecy News Watch
Terrorism Under the Guise of a University?
From Israel National News.Com
A university in the United States has recently been the subject of Internet blogs due to the disturbing information it provides on its website.
As reported on Pamela Geller’s blog “Atlas Shrugs” on Sunday, the San Antonio, Texas chapter of the Muslim American Society also runs a university called the Islamic American University, which is one if its main projects. Yet an examination of the university’s website has uncovered the following definition of its goals: “The Islamic American University is an institution for education, training, Da’wa and studies in the fields of Islamic Shari’a, its fundamentals, linguistics, and sciences.”
Shari’a law is the sacred Islamic law which includes some very strict behavioral rules, particularly towards women. Under Shari’a Law, for example, wives cannot obtain a divorce even if they are abused by their husbands. The law also allows a Muslim man to marry a child as young as 1 year old and to consummate the marriage by age 9. A woman is considered to be a slave to her husband under Shari’a law, can be beaten by her husband at his will, and all the while her husband is permitted to have 4 wives and a temporary wife for a limited period at his discretion.
Hamas, who controls the Gaza Strip, has implemented Shari’a law in the Strip, including the enforcement of a dress code for women on the street, in schools and in the courts, expulsion from schools of female students who do not wear a head covering and wide dresses, a requirement that women announcers on television must wear a veil and that Islamic content must be featured in television programs, and police arresting immodestly clad women and enforcing gender separation, to name a few. Rules implemented by Hamas in the past month have included prohibiting women and teenagers from smoking hookahs in public, and removing dressing rooms from women’s clothing stores.
Da’wa, another term mentioned on the university’s website, is the Islamic act of proselytizing, or convincing non-Muslims to convert to Islam.
Furthermore, the website goes on to say that “IAU aims at grooming distinguished scholars, activists, leaders, and teachers who are well-rounded in Islam as well as in the different facets of American life. The IAU board of trustees is headed by internationally renowned scholars such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qardawi who serves as chairman and Dr. Jamal Badawi who serves as vice chairman.”
Geller’s blog explains that Qaradawi is a Muslim who is active in the Muslim Brotherhood, considered to be “the parent organization of Hamas and al-Qaeda.” He has frequently justified Palestinian suicide bombings as legitimate responses to alleged “Zionist occupation”.
Qaradawi has expressed support for the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq and endorsed the kidnapping and murder of American civilians there. During the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war, he voiced support for Hizbullah. He has also been barred from entering the United States since 1999 due to his support for Palestinian terrorism, and in 2008, the United Kingdom also denied him a visa on grounds that he seeks “to justify any act of terrorist violence…”
Geller added that the Muslim Brotherhood “has infiltrated every agency and institution at the highest levels” in the United States and said that one of its goals as outlined in a document that was captured and entered into evidence in the Holy Land terror trial, is “eliminating and destroying western civilization from within” and forming one global Islamic state.
- Prophecy News Watch
As Some Young Muslims Turn to Radicalism, Concern Grows
From NY Times.Com
Before Abi left her parents’ house in northern Germany last year, she asked her father, “Daddy, what can I bring you from my journey?” He looked up from his book and answered, “Some perfumed oil.” “Will do,” she said, hugging him goodbye.
He is still waiting, more than a year later, for her to return.
Abi, now 23, and her husband never made the trip they said they had planned to Saudi Arabia to visit Mecca and Medina. Instead they became part of a growing number of young Muslims from Germany and other European countries who travel to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region, eventually ending up in the camps of groups affiliated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
One German man, Eric Breininger, was later reported killed in a battle with Pakistani troops.
A Turkish-language Web site announced that in recent days nine foreign fighters were killed as they traveled to carry out operations with the Taliban. Two of them were identified as Germans, from Bonn and Berlin.
Others have been arrested on a variety of charges. In one case, several people were convicted of planning attacks against American military facilities in Germany.
Intelligence officials are concerned that the young people, most in their 20s, will be used by the militants for propaganda purposes or trained to take up arms. They also worry that some will slip back into Germany to recruit others or to join sleeper cells and ultimately commit acts of terrorism.
“This is a very dangerous situation and German security services are very nervous about it,” said Guido Steinberg, terrorism expert of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin. “Al Qaeda and other organizations have put Germany on their target priority list as one of the top places.”
Security officials believe that the number of young Germans who make the trip is relatively small, perhaps fewer than 200 since the early 1990s. But they also believe the number is growing, inspired in part by German-language videos on the Internet, including some made by a group called German Taliban Mujahedeen, which promise a happy life with others committed to Shariah law.
It is difficult to pin down an exact figure because most of those headed for the border regions first leave Germany by car, to elude airport security checks; many go to Turkey and then illegally into Iran, where they meet smugglers who take them to their destination.
Security officials are also troubled because it appears that whole families are now making the move, after selling all their possessions and taking their savings from the bank.
A man who helps smuggle foreigners into the region offered an explanation for the need for cash. In the past, said the man, Abu Yahia, who is from Waziristan, the militant groups once had enough money to support those who joined them. Now, he said, with all the fighting going on, the newcomers are asked to “bring enough money so they can support the groups and themselves.”
The parents of Abi — her mother is German and her father is from a West African country — are appalled by their daughter’s transformation from a Westernized dental student to a radicalized Muslim. (Fearing harassment, the parents consented to be interviewed only if their names were not disclosed. Abi is a shortened form of their daughter’s real name.)
The changes came slowly, they say, after Abi fell in love with a young Iranian man, who grew up in Germany. After marrying in a mosque in 2008 — a shock to her father, though he is Muslim — the young couple changed their behavior and their dress. He converted from Shiism, started to follow a radical Sunni form of Islam and grew his beard; she started wearing head scarves and cut off contact with friends. “My husband told her that this was not what Islam was teaching, to stop friendships, but she would not listen,” Abi’s mother said.
At the beginning of March last year, Abi, her husband and three others left their homes in Germany and ultimately made their way to the Pakistani border region of Waziristan. At the beginning Abi told her parents through e-mail that she and her husband wanted to live in an Islamic society, though her husband later sent signals to his parents that he wanted to return to Germany. But then he appeared in a propaganda video with a gun in his hand. “I knew then, that it would be very tough for them to return,” Abi’s mother said.
Security officials, as well as the parents of Abi, her husband and other parents of young people who have gone to the Pakistani border region, hope to learn more about their situation from Rami Makanesi, a 25-year-old German national of Syrian descent, who was recently arrested by Pakistani officials while in the tribal district of North Waziristan.
Since his arrest Mr. Makanesi has been in the custody of Pakistan’s main spy service, the ISI. According to a senior ISI official, Mr. Makanesi told Pakistani investigators that he was a member of Al Qaeda and had trained suicide bombers for them in Waziristan. “He did not leave the impression that he was someone who had no idea what he was doing there,” said the ISI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to speak publicly about the case.
Mr. Makanesi also spoke about dozens of Qaeda-recruited Europeans fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan. “He spoke about six other German men who had been in the same region with him,” the official said.
“There are connections between the circles from Hamburg to circles in Berlin, Bonn and Frankfurt,” said a senior German intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the case. “It is very possible that Mr. Makanesi has met some people from Germany who traveled from other cities as well.”
One of the families desperate for some information is that of Thomas, a 24-year-old convert to Islam who has grown more observant over the past two years. The family grew alarmed when Thomas, now using the name Haroun, and his wife began talking about moving to a place where they could practice their faith more completely.
“We went to the police and intelligence service and asked for help, because we noticed how they had changed,” his mother said. “We’ve cried for help.” But the authorities had no legal basis to intervene.
Last September, he and his wife told his parents that they were leaving Berlin for a trip to celebrate their first wedding anniversary. Instead, they made their way to Waziristan.
At the beginning, Thomas sent e-mails to his parents, telling them the living conditions were tough. Last December, he wrote that he didn’t know if he would see the next summer.
“Since then no message, no idea if he is still alive or dead, no certainty, which is making it very complicated,” his mother said.
German security officials say that they believe Thomas went through military training in Waziristan. “We have indications that he has appeared in one propaganda video, but with his face covered,” one official said.
The parents of Abi and Thomas still hope that their children will return to Germany. But security officials say that in nearly all cases those who return continue to associate with more militant Muslims.
Abi’s mother says the signals that she is getting from her daughter about a return are not very hopeful.
Abi has told her mother that Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan are oppressed and need help. That reaction is typical for her daughter, who always wanted to help people, Abi’s mother said, adding, “I was always proud of her for this.”
- Prophecy News Watch
What a ‘Islamic caliphate’ would look like in 2010
From WND.Com
An Islamic caliphate in the contemporary world would provide for a legislature of Islamists voted on only by members of the faith, judges to carry out justice through Shariah and a reluctant commitment to “bear with” non-Muslims.
The outline comes from Israr Ahmed, who died earlier this year. He founded Pakistan’s leading religious organization, Tanzeem-e-Islami, was a prominent Islamic scholar who actively campaigned for establishment of an Islamic caliphate and wrote more than 60 books.
His proposal was the subject of a recent conference in Lahore that examined his teachings and was documented by the Middle East Media Research Institute, which monitors media in the region.
At the conference on Ahmed’s work, Akif Saeed, the new emir of Tanzeem-e-Islami, said his predecessor diagnosed all of Pakistan’s problems as “originating from the absence of caliphate.”
“The real case of our woes is the delay in the enforcement of Shariah [in Pakistan]. Peaceful protest and other tactics can help us in this regard … Our belief in the oneness of Allah can make the Muslims one nation.”
Author Joel Richardson has documented the growing call for a global caliphate, including developments in Turkey as well as Iran.
MEMRI said Ahmed reportedly proclaimed that the head of an Islamic state could reject majority decisions of an elected assembly and believed women should be barred from all professions except medicine and teaching.
The organization translated excerpts from Ahmed’s Urdu-language booklet, “The System of Caliphate in Pakistan – What, Why, and How?”
In it, Ahmed wrote that in such a system, the “sovereignty will belong to Allah.”
“That will be expressed in the unconditional and complete supremacy of the Quran and the Sunnah over the system and the law. This supremacy will obviously be asserted in the constitution as the basis of the state’s existence.”
He also concluded that “full citizenship will not be awarded to all the people living within its geographical boundaries, but only to those among them who will announce their belief in Allah and Muhammad as his final prophet.”
“Non-Muslims will be a protected minority whose life, wealth and honor will be protected and who will enjoy guaranteed freedom in their beliefs, religious activities, family laws and complete personal law. And their sacred places will be as safe as mosques are. But as law-making in an Islamic state or caliphate will be within the boundaries of the Quran and the Sunnah, and the purpose of the caliphate will be the expansion and completion of the prophet’s mission, the non-Muslims will not be a part of law-making or of higher-order policy or strategy development.”
He then listed several points for a modern Islamic state, or “caliphhood”:
All Muslims will be equal
“Nothing bars a modern Islamic state” from using a legislature, executive branch and judiciary. “There will be a legislature to continue lawmaking as per the Quran … [and] there will be a judiciary to decide disputes … in accordance with Shariah.”
“There should be an institution of religious scholars who will check the laws made by or drafts proposed to the parliament for them to be in accordance with the Quran.”
Political parties “will be barred from including in their programs anything that is against the Quran and the Sunnah.” If a politician disagrees, “he should resign.”
“Democratic values can be propagated and enforced within … the requirement of the Quran’s principle of consultation.”
“All [Muslim] citizens will be allowed to believe, pray and perform their rites and rituals of birth, death, marriage and inheritance according to their sects.”
It doesn’t matter, Ahmed concluded, whether the government is a presidential or parliamentary system.
Woman can become a member of a “consultative assembly” while “in proper dress with faces in veils,” and non-Muslims “will not be allowed to vote or run for seats in elections.” A board could be established to listen to them. “This condition is in every way against the modern norms yet we have to bear with it if we have to make an ideal modern state.”
Richardson, the author of “Islamic Antichrist” who blogs at JoelsTrumpet.com, suggested, “Imagine a form of government that promises to end all oppression, where justice always prevails, where the wicked are subjugated, where Muslims dwell together in peace and unity and where God’s blessings reside.
“Never mind the fact that whenever Islamic government has been tried, just the opposite has been proven to be true,” he said. “History reveals that Islamic rule has always resulted in the oppression of women, children, non-Muslims, minorities and any Muslims of insufficient piety.”
He also addressed the issue of whether Turkey is on course to lead a revived Islamic empire.
He cited the work of the National Intelligence Council, which suggested that in the coming years a fledgling caliphate could emerge.
“What is interesting about the council’s ‘over the horizon’ assessment is that the coming caliphate would not be built on acts of terrorism, but instead would be established through peaceful means. By claiming to provide the Middle East with stability, peace and security, the emergence of the coming caliphate will be viewed positively by much of the world. Yet the conclusion of the 2020 report states that even a limited and moderate Islamic caliphate would pose problems for the United States and its global interests of immense proportions.”
He reported that Adnan Oktar, a Turkish Muslim intellectual, already has been calling for a “Turkish-led Islamic Union.” Oktar, although a controversial figure, is highly respected in many circles and is the most published author in the Islamic world, with over 65 million copies of his works in circulation.
“We should not take Mr. Oktar’s vision lightly. For the past several years, I have been highlighting the merging of two very significant developments in the nation of Turkey – the first issue being the rapid Islamization of the nation. … But the second issue, perhaps of even greater significance, is Turkey’s re-emergence as leader of the region.”
- Prophecy News Watch
Obama adviser: U.S. ‘ideal place for renewal of Islam’
From WND.Com
A religion adviser to President Obama has close ties to the imam who wants to build a 13-story Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero. The two have been documented together discussing America as “the ideal place for a renewal of Islam,” WND has learned.
In February, Obama named a Chicago Muslim, Eboo Patel, to his Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Patel is the founder and executive director of Chicago-based Interfaith Youth Core, which says it promotes pluralism by teaming people of different faiths on service projects.
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the controversial Muslim leader behind the plan to build the Islamic center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero, wrote the afterword to Patel’s 2006 book, “Building the Interfaith Youth Movement: Beyond Dialogue to Action.”
Patel is listed as one of 15 “Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow” on the website for the American Society for the Advancement of Muslims, or ASAM, which is led by Rauf.
In Patel’s 2007 book, “Saving Each Other, Saving Ourselves,” he recounts discussing with Rauf the future of Islam in the U.S.
Rauf “understood the vision immediately and suggested that I visit him and his wife, Daisy Khan, at their home the following evening,” Patel recalled.
Khan founded the ASAM with her husband and has aided him in his plans for the mosque near Ground Zero.
“The living room of their apartment on the Upper West Side was set up like a mosque, with prayer rugs stretched from wall to wall,” wrote Patel in his book.
Continued Patel: “I arrived at dusk, prayed the maghrib prayer with Daisy and Imam Feisal and then talked with them about how America, with its unique combination of religious devotion and religious diversity, was the ideal place for a renewal of Islam.”
“In the twentieth century, Catholicism and Judaism underwent profound transformations in America,” Rauf observed. “I think, this century, in America, Islam will do the same.”
Patel boasts of a “critical mass” of Muslims in the U.S.
“Islam is a religion that has always been revitalized by its migration,” he wrote. “America is a nation that has been constantly rejuvenated by immigrants. There is now a critical mass of Muslims in America.”
Patel last March wrote a Huffington Post piece referring to Obama’s former “green jobs” czar Van Jones as a “faith hero.”
“In my last post on Van, I called him an American patriot,” wrote Patel. “That is high praise in my book. But watching Van’s speech at the NAACP, I have another title for him, one that I reserve for the true giants of history. Van Jones is a faith hero.”
Jones resigned in September after it was exposed he founded a communist revolutionary organization and signed a statement that accused the Bush administration of possible involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Jones also called for “resistance” against the U.S.
Jones previously stated his advocacy for green jobs was part of a broader movement to destroy the U.S. capitalist system.
WND reported that one day after the 9/11 attacks, Jones led a vigil that expressed solidarity with Arab and Muslim Americans as well as what he called the victims of “U.S. imperialism” around the world.
Rauf, meanwhile, has caused a stir with his proposed $100 million, 13-story Islamic cultural center and mosque near the corner of Park Place and West Broadway.
Rauf sparked controversy earlier this month when he refused during a live radio interview to condemn violent jihad groups as terrorists. Rauf repeatedly refused on the air to affirm the U.S. designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization or call the Muslim Brotherhood extremists.
The Brotherhood openly seeks to spread Islam around the world, while Hamas is committed to Israel’s destruction and is responsible for scores of suicide bombings, shootings and rocket attacks aimed at Jewish civilian population centers.
During the interview, Rauf was also asked who he believes was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.
“There’s no doubt,” stated Rauf. “The general perception all over the world was it was created by people who were sympathetic to Osama bin Laden. Whether they were part of the killer group or not, these are details that need to be left to the law-enforcement experts.”
Rauf has been on record several times blaming U.S. policies for the Sept. 11 attacks. He has been quoted refusing to admit Muslims carried out the attacks.
Referring to the Sept. 11 attacks, Rauf told CNN, “U.S. policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. We (the U.S.) have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. Osama bin Laden was made in the USA.”
Madeline Brooks, a reporter who attended a sermon this year by Rauf, quoted the Islamic leader as stating “some people say it was Muslims who attacked on 9/11.”
Rauf’s 2004 book had two different titles, one in English and the second in Arabic. In the U.S., his book was called “What’s right with America is what’s right with Islam.”
The same book, published in Arabic, bore the name “The Call From the WTC Rubble: Islamic Da’wah From the Heart of America Post-9/11.”
- Prophecy News Watch
Online Islam Magazine Teaches Bomb-Making Skills, Targets Anyone Involved in “Draw Mohammed Day”
From The JIDF.Com
If you have ever wondered how to make a bomb at home, what to pack for jihad, or how to communicate in encrypted messages, a new English-language Al-Qaeda magazine has the answers.
The first edition of Yemen-based Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s (AQAP) Inspire magazine was released on Sunday, according to SITE Intelligence, a US service that monitors Islamist websites.
Inspire — a 67-page publication provided by SITE from jihadist forums that are sometimes password-protected or otherwise difficult to access — appears to have been designed with care.
The magazine, which is packed with sleek pictures of Al-Qaeda leaders and bright graphics, can also be viewed on the popular online document-sharing website Scribd.
Its cover features an image of a silhouetted man with a rifle under the headline “May Our Souls Be Sacrificed For You!,” an article attributed to radical US-Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
With article titles such as “Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom” by the “The AQ Chef,” or a packing list included in “What to Expect in Jihad,” parts of the magazine have a friendly, if extremist, scouting manual feel.
But despite its sometimes-friendly tone and snazzy layout, its intent is, very literally, deadly serious.
The “Make a Bomb” article notes that a device made in “one or two days could be ready to kill at least ten people,” while one made in a month “could kill tens of people.”
The article, which addresses “Muslims in America and Europe,” then details the construction of an explosive device using sugar, crushed match heads, a pipe, a Christmas tree-type light, a battery and a clock.
It includes images of the different steps.
The aim, according to “The AQ Chef,” is “conveying to you our military training right into your kitchen, to relieve you of the difficulty of travelling to us.”
The instructions appear in a section entitled “Open Source Jihad,” which is described as “a manual for those who loath the tyrants.”
“What to Expect in Jihad” offers advice for those who decide to take the fight abroad.
“When coming to any land of jihad, it is important to be able to speak the local language fluently,” the article advises.
It also suggests that would-be mujahedeen (holy warriors) bring a friend with them, and that they learn as much as possible about local culture before travelling.
The article also offers packing advice, saying that, “When on jihad, one has to bear in mind that they will have to pack light.”
It goes on to recommend that mujahedeen bring a “well-built backpack,” several pairs of weather-appropriate clothes, “body-cleansing items” and “flexible boots.”
Items such as computers and MP3 players can also be brought along. The article warns, however, that cell phones with SIM cards in place can be “dangerous,” and, along with cameras, should not be used without permission.
Religious books make up most of the section on reading material to bring.
In another article, the magazine provides instructions on sending and receiving encrypted messages using a computer programme called “Asrar al-Mujahedeen,” or Secrets of the Mujahedeen.
“Spies are actively paying attention to… emails, especially if you are known to be jihadi-minded,” the article says. Thus, the programme is a better option.
It also notes that “the enemy” has created a knock-off Asrar programme meant to monitor jihadi correspondence, and advises users to perform an authenticity check.
Among various other sections are a poem praising Omar Faruk Abdulmutallab, who is accused of trying to blow up a US airliner on December 25, and transcripts of previous messages from bin Laden and his number two Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The magazine also contains what it says is an interview with AQAP leader Nasser al-Wahaishi, and the article attributed to Awlaki, which is on the controversy surrounding cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.
That article argues for the killing of anyone who defames the prophet, especially those involved in the “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,” which was satirically proposed by a Seattle-based cartoonist.
“The large number of (‘Draw Mohammed’) participants makes it easier for us because there are many targets to choose from,” the article says.
- Prophecy News Watch
Islamists of the World Unite; You Have Nothing to Lose Except Any Pretext of Being Moderate
From Rubin Reports.Blogspot.Com
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Islamists of the World Unite; You Have Nothing to Lose Except Any Pretext of Being Moderate
It’s a development of tremendous importance not covered in the Western media but it might change the direction of Middle Eastern and even global politics.
The Muslim Brotherhoods have taken two steps—partial and limited but very significant—toward cooperation with the Iran-led alliance and especially with Hizballah. (The Brotherhoods have always had a close relationship with Hamas, which is after all itself an off-shoot of the Egyptian and Jordanian brotherhood branches.)
First, Mahdi Akef, the Egyptian Brotherhood’s supreme guide, recently intervened in a debate to speak highly of Shia Muslims for the first time. As recently as 2006, his organization was distinctly sour on both Hizballah and Shias in general. After all, in Iraq—where the Brotherhood has supported Sunni insurgents—Sunnis and Shias have been killing each other for five years. Up until now, the Brotherhood took a back seat only to the Egyptian government itself in being concerned over an Iranian (that is, Shia) drive for regional hegemony.
Secondly, Akef, has defied his own country’s government to ally himself with Hizballah. What makes this such a remarkable and high-risk step?
–The Muslim Brotherhood is Sunni Muslim; the Lebanese Hizballah group is Shia. Brotherhood leaders do not view Shia Islamists as brothers and in the past have been alarmed at the rising power of Shia forces in Lebanon and Iraq.
–Hizballah is a client of Iran’s regime. As a Shia and non-Arab power, Iran is not on the Brotherhood’s Ramadan greeting card list.
–Egypt’s government has just announced a major Hizballah effort to destabilize the country by staging terrorist attacks there. Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah has openly called for the overthrow of Egypt’s regime. He has now acknowledged connections with the arrested terrorists, though he claims their mission was to help Hamas and attack Israel. The Egyptian government has rejected this justification. As a result, siding with Hizballah risks a government-sponsored wave of suppression against the Brotherhood.
–This step also makes the Brotherhood look unpatriotic in Arab and Sunni terms to millions of Egyptians by siding with Persian Iranians and Shia Muslims.
–Akef’s statement tears the chador off the pretension that the Brotherhood has become moderate. Of course, while not engaging in political violence within Egypt, it has long supported terrorism against Israel and the United States (in Iraq). Now, to this is added backing an Iran-Syria takeover of Lebanon and at least the image of accepting armed struggle against the Egyptian government by others.
–And most importantly of all, Akef has endorsed the strategic line of the Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas axis in open defiance of not only Egypt’s government but of the country’s national interests as well.
What did Akef and his colleagues say that was so significant? The story is told in the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat, April 15. Put into a seemingly innocuous framework of supporting the Palestinians, the Brotherhood’s new line ends up in some shocking conclusions.
Akef said that Hamas should be supported, “By any means necessary.” The implication is, since the Brotherhood has always favored abrogation of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty that Egypt should go to war with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. A Brotherhood government would probably do just that.
Hussein Ibrahim, deputy leader of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary bloc, which includes about 20 percent of the legislators, in calling for full Egyptian support of Hamas, stated, “Our enemy and Hizballah’s enemy are the same.” That enemy would seem to be Israel. But is Israel the only such enemy?
Akef took Hizballah’s side against Egypt’s rulers. Since Hizballah leader Nasrallah had denied he was doing anything against Egypt, everyone should take his word for it rather than that of Egyptian President Husni Mubarak.
In a statement to Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Akef said there were two competing camps in the region, respectively waving the banners of “cooperative resistance” and of the “protection of the state’s sovereignty.” Countries like Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are rejecting Iranian influence and Islamist takeovers in the name of their own continued sovereignty.
Yet “resistance” is the basic slogan of the Iranian-led coalition. Akef insisted that he didn’t seek to compromise Egypt’s sovereignty. But asked how he could reconcile these two “axes” and why Egypt should help Hizballah he responded:
“There are two agendas [in the region]…an agenda working to protect and support the resistance against the Zionist enemy, and an agenda that only cares about satisfying the Americans and the Zionists.”
Any Arab listener must take this to mean that there are the properly struggling forces—Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah—and the vile traitors—Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the Iraqi government.
In addition, it is obvious that if there was a large-scale Hizballah attack on Israel from Egypt—with multiple suicide bombers coming from Egyptian territory to try to commit a September 11-type attack in Israel—Cairo would be dragged into a major crisis with Israel. War could result.
This is, after all, what has happened in the past. What the Brotherhood wants from Egypt–as the PLO did in the 1960s and 1970s in Jordan and later in Lebanon–is to give up its sovereignty and act as a military base from which Hamas can do anything it wants. Such behavior not only led to repeated military clashes as Israel retaliated against Jordan and Lebanon but also to serious destabilization within those two countries.
Ibrahim made another telling statement in saying that the Muslim Brotherhood “do not see any contradiction in supporting the resistance and protecting the state’s sovereignty. We are in support of the resistance, in Gaza, and Palestine, and Lebanon….”
Why, however, did he include Lebanon? After all, the overwhelming majority of Lebanese Sunnis oppose Hizballah, viewing it as an arm of Syrian-Iranian power. The apparent answer is that Hizballah is fighting Israel and that the Palestinian issue overrides every other consideration.
Yet the Brotherhood is making choices. It certainly doesn’t support the Palestinian Authority, controlled by nationalist forces, but only the Islamist Hamas. And it opposes having an independent Palestinian state created through a peace process with Israel.
Moreover, so what if both Hizballah and the Brotherhood support Hamas? One would expect that the Brotherhood would feel itself engaged in a battle of influence with Hizballah as to who would be Hamas’s patron, and that of a supposed future Islamist Palestine. Could Brotherhood leaders not have noticed that in Lebanon there is no Hamas among Palestinians there because Iran and Hizballah seek to control them directly?
Under cover of supporting “the Palestinians,” then, the Brotherhood’s priority is on backing Islamist revolution in Iraq, Lebanon, among the Palestinians, Egypt, and elsewhere. The Brotherhood doesn’t engage in violence not out of principle but because the Egyptian government is too strong, the Brotherhood is too weak, and it hopes to make gains through elections aided by “useful idiots” in the West.
If it feels the power balance shift in the future, it would have no compunction about launching a revolution. And as it gains in power, the extremism of its program will be more openly exposed.
When Ibrahim says, “Our enemy and Hizballah’s enemy are the same,” it sends two messages to the Egyptian government and those who oppose an Islamist Egypt. First, that enemy includes the Egyptian regime itself. Second, the Brotherhood’s friends and Hizballah’s friends are also the same.
It is far too much to say, as does the not-so-reliable Egyptian magazine Ruz al-Yousef: “The simple folk who are followers of the Muslim Brotherhood will discover that their Sunni movement is following in the footsteps of the Shi’ite Hizbullah and is subordinate to [its] leadership….”
But something is going on, even as foolish people in the West argue that the Brotherhood has become moderate. It is quite possible to conclude that the Brotherhood’s idea that the leader is he who fights hardest and is most intransigent: The “resistance” led by Iran’s regime, which may have nuclear weapons in a year or so as a further incentive for admiring it.
“Greater Iran” part of the path to Islamic Caliphate & The Return of The Mahdi
From WND.Com
A radical cleric called Saturday for the creation of a “Greater Iran” that would rule over the entire Middle East and Central Asia, in an event that he said would herald the coming of Islam’s expected messiah.
Ayatollah Mohammad Bagher Kharrazi said the creation of what he calls an Islamic United States is a central aim of the political party he leads called Hezbollah, or Party of God, and that he hoped to make it a reality if they win the next presidential election.
Kharrazi’s comments reveal the thinking of a growing number of hard-liners in Iran, many of whom have become more radical during the postelection political crisis and the international standoff over the country’s nuclear program. Kharrazi, however, is not highly influential in Iran’s clerical hierarchy and his views do not represent those of the current government.
Kharrazi’s comments were published Saturday in his newspaper, Hezbollah.
He said he envisioned a Greater Iran that would stretch from Afghanistan to Israel, bringing about the destruction of the Jewish state.
He also said its formation would be a prelude to the reappearance of the Mahdi, a revered ninth-century saint known as the Hidden Imam, whom Muslims believe will reappear before judgment day to end tyranny and promote justice in the world.
“The Islamic United States will be an introduction to the formation of the global village of the oppressed and that will be a prelude to the single global rule of the Mahdi,” the Hezbollah newspaper quoted him as saying.
Besides Israel, he said the union would also destroy Shiite Iran’s other regional adversaries, whom he called “cancerous tumors.” He singled out secular Arab nationalists such as members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party in Iraq, as well as followers of the austere version of Sunni Islam practiced primarily in Saudi Arabia that is known as Wahabism.
Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab nations have watched Iran’s growing regional clout with deep concern.
The growing voice of hard-liners like Kharrazi has deepened worries even if it appears unlikely such a divisive figure would win the 2013 presidential election.
Still, even President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday that he expects the government which follows his to be “ten times more revolutionary.”
- From Prophecy News Watch
The Islamic Divide
From KHouse.Org Archives October 2007
THE ISLAMIC DIVIDE -
The terms Shiite and Sunni are heard often in stories about the Muslim world, but few people really know what they mean. Religion permeates every aspect of life in the Muslim world and understanding the differences between Shiites and Sunnis is important in understanding the complex geopolitics of the Middle East.
The division between Shiites (or Shia, there are a number of variations on the spelling) and Sunnis began in the years immediately following the death of the Prophet Muhammad, the founder of the Islamic faith. When Muhammad died in 632 AD there was a disagreement over who should succeed him as the political and religious leader of the Muslim world. One group of Muslims elected Abu Bakr, a close companion of Muhammad to be the caliph, or leader. However a smaller group believed that Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali ibn Abu Talib, was the rightful leader. The Muslims who believed that Abu Bakr should be Muhammad’s successor have come to be known as Sunni. Whereas the Muslims who felt Ali should have been the successor are now known as Shiite.
Abu Bakr was the first caliph, although Shiites considered him to be a usurper. He was succeeded by Umar ibn al-Khattab and Uthman ibn Affan, the second and third caliphs. In the year 656 AD, 24 years after the death of Muhammad, Uthman was murdered. After Uthman’s death Ali, whom Shiites had always considered the rightful leader, was finally elected to rule. Ali was opposed by Muhammad’s wife Aisha, the daughter of Abu Bakr. Aisha challenged his authority and criticized Ali for his lack of interest in bringing Uthman’s killers to justice. Aisha raised an army against Ali, which lead to the first Fitna, or Islamic civil war. Ali defeated Aisha at the Battle of Bassorah, also known as the Battle of the Camel. Ali’s reign was turbulent and he was assassinated in 661 AD.
Under the leadership of the first four caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali), the political, social, and religious institutions of Islam were solidified. Islam spread far beyond the borders of the Arabian peninsula, east into the Persian empire, north into Byzantine territory, and west across northern Africa. After Ali’s death, however, Islamic unity splintered. Sunni Islam continued through the Umayyads and other dynasties that led to the powerful Ottoman and Mughal empires of the 15th to 20th Centuries. For Shiites, leadership was passed down through the Imams, who were believed to be divinely appointed from Muhammad’s family. The 12th and final Shiite Imam died in the late 9th Century. After several centuries a council was appointed to elect an Ayatollah, the supreme Shiite spiritual leader.
The divide between Shiite and Sunni Muslims began as a political one, but this ultimately led to some religious and theological differences. The divide between the two sects has grown over time. Shiites and Sunnis disagree on the identity of the Mahdi, the coming Islamic messiah. They also disagree on the interpretation of various key passages of the Quran and the hadith. The Quran (or Koran) is the Islamic holy scriptures – the word of Allah. While the hadith are teachings and traditions passed down from Muhammad – not divinely inspired nevertheless very significant. Yet while there are differences in beliefs, both Shiites and Sunnis share the main articles of faith – the five pillars of Islam – which are the testimony of faith, prayer, giving to charity, fasting, and the pilgrimage to Mecca.
Shiites and Sunnis are the two largest Islamic sub-groups. However there are other sects, as well as divisions within the two groups. Sunni Muslims make up the majority, approximately eighty-five percent, of Muslims all over the world – they are spread from North Africa to Asia. However large populations of Shiite Muslims live in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and India.
Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion (depending on how you measure it), and is second in size only to Christianity, but the god of Islam and the God of the Bible are not one and the same. Allah is presented as unknowable and capricious, and is derived from the ancient pagan moon god. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob delights in making and keeping His promises. Jesus summarized the entire Law of Moses in two commandments: Love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind; and love your neighbor as yourself. Nowhere does the Koran make such a commandment. Although there are many peace-loving Muslims, study of the Islamic religion will reveal that true Islam is anything but a peaceful religion. Islam demands the utter destruction of all Jews, Christians, and anyone who refuses to convert to the Islamic faith. It is a warrior code that demands Muslims live and die by the sword.
The truth about Islam is exactly the opposite of what you will hear on the news. Many Americans believe that Islam is a religion of peace and that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. In public schools we teach our children a doctrine of tolerance, and in some schools students are even required to memorize passages of the Koran. While in comparison, Islamic children are taught that America is the Infidel. We are the enemy. When the towers came crashing down on September 11, 2001 and thousands of innocent people were killed, Muslims all over the world danced in the streets and praised the hijackers. Islamic terrorists are referred to in the West as radicals and extremists, while in the mid-east they are heralded by fundamentalists as martyrs and heroes, and the families of suicide bombers are rewarded monetary pensions. The disparity between the two perspectives is staggering, still Americans are not willing to face the truth about Islam.
[Editor's note: This is a highly condensed overview of early Islamic history as it pertains to the division between Shiites and Sunnis. It is important to note that Islamic sects tend to disagree on many aspects of key historical events (one man's hero is another's villain). For a unique perspective on the relationship between Sunni and Shiite Muslims we encourage you to get the new briefing pack titled Shiite/Sunni: The Two Houses of Islam by Avi Lipkin. If you've never heard Avi speak you're missing out! Also, check out our briefing pack The Sword of Allah to learn more about the origins of the Islamic faith.]
Related Links:
• Islam – CARM
• What’s the Difference Between Shi’ah and Sunni? – Christianity Today
• The Sword of Allah – MP3 Download – Koinonia House
• Strategic Trends: The Rise of Islam – Koinonia House
• Shiite/Sunni: The Two Houses of Islam – DVD – New!
• Shiite/Sunni: The Two Houses of Islam – Audio CD – New!
• Shiite/Sunni: The Two Houses of Islam – MP3 Download – New!
- FROM: Koinonia House News Letter.
